After seemingly interminable delays, AMD has finally unveiled the Athlon 64 CPU. AMD has released two versions of the chip, the mainstream Athlon 64 and the high-end Athlon FX 51 series, which AMD claims is an ideal gaming CPU. The Athlon 64 3200 will sell for US$417, and the Athlon FX 51 series, which will operate at 2.2GHz, will sell for $733. AMD has released a number of benchmarks which reveal that, in certain applications and resolutions, the Athlon FX is 4-38% faster than a 3.2GHz Pentium 4. However, AMD's own tests reveal that the Pentium 4 is still generally superior for various media encoding applications. A long list of companies have lined up to offer high praise and official support for these new CPUs, and companies are already offering these systems for sale. Both nVidia and ATI have shown colorful graphics clips run on AMD64 platforms, and AMD has lined up numerous industry spokesmen touting the benefits of 64-bit computing. Both chips are made on a .13 micron/copper interconnect process, and are quite similar to the Opteron CPU. They include 1 MB of L2 cache and an integrated memory controller to reduce memory access times. The Athlon 64/FX has a longer pipeline than the Athlon XP CPU, but it still manages to have a higher Instruction Per Clock (ISP) than the Athlon XP. The Athlon 64/FX features numerous other modifications and enhancements to improve performance, such as a 128-bit DDR memory controller and HyperTransport interconnect technology. Since neither the Prescott nor the Pentium “Extreme” will appear for the next two months, AMD may have a fairly positive fourth quarter. Check our main news item from yesterday for more info.

USER COMMENTS 80 comment(s)

But….(9:24am EST Wed Sep 24 2003)….can I cook tiny flapjacks on them as with the latest 103W P4? – by Dickie

Almost ready for new sys!(9:34am EST Wed Sep 24 2003)Runnin' dualies of these bad boys with a couple gig-o-ram has been my next upgrade choice for years now.

Hopefully a little friendly price war will actually make that system affordable.

Who's with me? – by 2 – they're cheap!

'Bout time(9:37am EST Wed Sep 24 2003)How long has it been now?

Consumer 64-bitsyay!– by ObLiViOn

n33t(9:46am EST Wed Sep 24 2003)but why do the motherboards available for the FX version not have PCI-X? – by SDB

Why I don't buy Intel(9:47am EST Wed Sep 24 2003)The DAY that AMD releases these processors, Intel releases the P4EE. Why did it have to wait for AMD to release something that beats the P4 before releasing something better? What if AMD was not around? Would we still be using a Pentium Pro at 200Mhz? I have nothing against doing whatever it takes to compete, but I do have something against sitting on technology unitl something better comes along. It makes me wonder what Intel would have released if AMD had come out with a 3.5Ghz Athlon64. What processors does Intel have that is just waiting for the time to be right to release it. That's not what geeks are in to. We want the best available. We don't want to wait for the marketing department's aproval before we are allowed to upgrade our machines.

In other words, who is the driving force in the processor market? Who is pushing the envelope, and who is treading water?– by ArcherB

yep,(9:52am EST Wed Sep 24 2003)and you'd still be paying $800 or more for that PPro at 200Mhz. Don't let it be said that Intel isn't the friend of consumers. – by Caesar's shadow

PCI-X(10:07am EST Wed Sep 24 2003)cause if they're targetted for gamers, they'll be using PCI Express like everyone else on the desktop. – by Duh!

Target Audience(10:14am EST Wed Sep 24 2003)So you're saying my games wouldn't run hella fast with an Ultra 320 SCSI Array of 15K RPM drives? But alas, with no 64bit PCI slots, that tends to not be an option. – by SDB

how far we have come(10:20am EST Wed Sep 24 2003)It was only a few years ago that the benchmarks we flipped and Cyrix and AMD were better at media encoding and considerably worse at FPU intensive operations. Now Intel is better at media encoding, and AMD is FAR superior in FPU intensive operations.

Media encoding is not really a concern for me, nor do I believe it is for most people. My Athlon 2200 can still rip and compress from CD at 5-6x straight to MP3. Ripping at 5.5-6.5x is not a reason to spend the more money. – by zaph1

RE: AMD-SUCKS(11:04am EST Wed Sep 24 2003)According to AMD figures, more than 18,000 of the processors will be released in Q4 alone, ramping up to several million per quarter by early next year.

In the meantime, the P4 EE is available…where? Prescott is available…where?

I'm not saying to run out and buy an Athlon64 right now (quite to the contrary) but to bash AMD's low production numbers while simultaneously lauding the performance of Intel chips that are either not available or not even produced yet is completely hypocritical. – by J. Eric Smith

Profitability factors(11:06am EST Wed Sep 24 2003)So, production still needs to be ramped up. I think we can get a clue as to when these will be widely available by finding out when television commercials for this product will be aired.

How AMD will be perceived is crucial. With technology, many are uncomfortable going with anything other than the familiar (i.e. Intel). Some aren't even aware that Intel has competition. Apple is benefiting from being viewed as “hip”. Maybe 64 bits will be viewed as “hip” and AMD as “cutting edge” rather than being a viable alternative.

The die size is huge. It's like 190 square mm or something. Northwood is at 127 sq mm. AMD will really benefit from die shrinks and 300 mm wafers.

– by Skippie

Dual cores(11:19am EST Wed Sep 24 2003) will also be “hip”.

– by Skippie

P4 EE(11:43am EST Wed Sep 24 2003)According to The Inquirer the P4 EE will not be a mass market product. There will be NO Retail version, only OEM. Since so little will be made they're going to want atleast $1,000 for it. If a Intel Xeon MP 2.0GHz 2MB Cache Retail Box costs around $3798.00 then imagine how much a P4 EE will cost????

“Alfs said the P4 HT EE would not be a mainstream part. Since it would be Intelís highest performing Pentium4 offering it would attract gamers and users demanding top performance. He said it would be “a little more expensive” than the regular P4 and would be available from OEMs in November.

The chip will be produced using .13Ķ technology but will later move to a 90 nanometer process. The chip will initially be available in tray form for systems and will not come boxed at this time.”

From here

– by Intel

Athlon Fx 51 as a workstation chip(11:57am EST Wed Sep 24 2003)With 128bit ECC memory support, running at 2.2GHz, and cheaper than a 146 opteron… this could be an awesome workstation chip.

Too bad they only provide 4 dimms on a motherboard… the 1.8GHz G5 got it right by having 8 dimms. I guess we'll have to wait for cheap 2GB dimms to usher-in the real 64bit revolution. – by chipace

Hmmmm…(12:06pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)Well the Tomshardware review shows even the fastest FX chip being beaten into a bloody pulp more than twice as many times as the FX wins.

Now the AMD crowd is gonna have to start saying, 'Just wait until XP 64 comes out!' – by 2cent

Bloody Pulp…(12:07pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)Oops edited that post wrong, it should say, 'Beaten into a bloody pulp by the P4EE'. – by 2cent

It's a whole new ballgame when 64-bit games get benchmarked against P4's. Then what are the Intel lovers gonna say? Waaaa!! It's not fair, cause they're using 64-bits and it's apples to oranges!

It's who performs better right? We'll see. – by Go AMD

Define “bloody pulp”(12:24pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)If you consider just the media encoding benchmarks then, yes, the Athlon FX is outclassed by the P4. This is nothing new, and it's likely to stay that way. Intel's P4 architecture is particularly well suited to media applications due to its very long pipeline and high clock speed.

But if you care to look at productivity benchmarks, you see the Athlon64 is very strong, scoring quite high in comparison to the P4 EE. Integer operations, the maintstay of productivity apps, seem to do very well on the Athlon64.

Gaming is a mixed bag, but certainly no “bloody pulp” beating. UT2K3 shows Athlon64's beating P4's, Q3 shows P4's beating Athlon64's. In most of the other benches, the two chips score within 10% of one another, a performance margin that even the most demanding gamer would be hard pressed to even notice.

I'm going to point out *again* that if Intel hadn't put out the P4 EE, the majority of the benchmarks outside media encoding would be in AMD's favor, and the benchmark results for the non-EE P4 3.2GHz bear me out. Given that the EE is not available now and likely won't be available to the general public ever, using the EE to beat up the Athlon64 is highly dubious.

But, to be fair, I must say that the P4 remains a very good choice due to its lower price and very good performance. Overclockers need not apply for Athlon64's due to poor motherboard overclocking support and *no* multiplier adjustments (yet).

If I had money to spend today, I'd buy either a 2.4GHz P4 or a Barton 2500+, then overclock both of them. The pricing for a 3.2GHz P4 is silly, as is the pricing for a 3200+, especially when you consider what a bargain the midrange chips are.

The high end P4's and Athlon64's will remain the purview of the I've-got-more-money-than-sense crowd. I bet most readers here can't name a single person they know of who's bought one of these chips (Opteron inclusive), and the main reason is price. Pricing in six months will be very, very different than it is right now. That's when the real combat will begin, when these “high end” chips become mainstream. – by J. Eric Smith

P4EE(12:25pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)It's pretty said that Athlon FX beat the $3,000 P4 EE 3.6GHZ in some benches. There is no Shame in being beat by a CPU that will barely SEE the light of DAY.

“The chip will initially be available in tray form for systems and will not come boxed at this time.”

LOL good luck getting a $3,000 chip! I can get a FX right now! – by HAHA

re: Skippie(12:25pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)I agree how AMD will be perceived is crucial. Intel has a big marketing machine, almost as big as Microbloat. I have seen superior products go to the wayside due to bashing by a competitor. It happens all the time in politics. Democrats flat out tell lies to try and make Republicans look bad all the time and the country is full of idiots who believe them. – by I hate Democrats

P4EE(12:25pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)It's pretty said that Athlon FX beat the $3,000 P4 EE 3.6GHZ in some benches. There is no Shame in being beat by a CPU that will barely SEE the light of DAY.

“The chip will initially be available in tray form for systems and will not come boxed at this time.”

LOL good luck getting a $3,000 chip! I can get a FX right now! – by HAHA

A couple of points…(12:26pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)I don't thinnk Intel was “holding back” the P4EE. I think it was more of a desperation marketing move by making slight changes to a Xeon and marketing it as a desktop CPU. I'll bet they won't want to sell too many of these, either, since I'm sure they'll be selling at a significant loss (just to keep sales from AMD).

I just read the Tomshardware article, too. A lot of the benchmarks that P4EE won were benchies *optimized* for P4…so I at least will take them with a large grain of salt.

I think AMD's biggest hurdles will be meeting demand, pushing 64-bit programs and (most significantly) fighting a price war with Intel. – by JRink

LOL(12:27pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)Look the FX-51 is no faster than a P4 3.2GHz. – by LOL

Price war(12:35pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)I believe if AMD has a good chip they should not undersell themselves to try and keep up with Intel who has wads of cash like Microsoft. The 64 bit computing will sell itself and people will shell a little extra to get the best for their money unless they want an extra room heater then they may buy Intel. All I am waiting for is motherboards and Windows-XP64 to be released along with the usual few months of time it takes to verify the serious bugs have been worked out then I am going 64bit. – by Regulas

P4EE(12:42pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)am i correct that the P4EE is nothing more than a Xeon?i am not bashing .. just curious – by skeiner

cpu2000 numbers available(1:03pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)– by chipace

RE: 2cent(1:22pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)You do realize that the EEs that were beating the FX were over clocked, right?

AMD knows what they're doing. They're just lacking in the $$$ for superior marketing.

It is clearly an architecturally better CPU and Intel's knows it.

P4EE – what a crock of BS. – by Go AMD

THG(1:38pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)Please…it ain't what it used to be. They seem to be all about RAW numbers, no reality. – by Go AMD

chipace(1:49pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)P4EE gets ~1500 in specint and fp because of its cache – by guy

Come on guys!(2:07pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)Do your own research, don't take others people words for it. Reviews floating around the internet doesn't mean shit. What's really meant to say is, heh look people see what I can do with excel ect… – by happy

“Better” in this case is a purely subjective term. Which is a better engine? A 400hp nitrous-fed, turbocharged, intercooled 4-cylinder engine or a 400hp normally aspirated big-block V8? Both produce the same power, albeit with different curves and fuel consumption rates. But is one “better” than the other? It depends on how you drive, but ultimately both will get you down the quarter mile at roughly the same rates.

It's the same with the P4 vs. A64. The P4 will excel at media encoding since that type of work goes well with high clock speeds and long pipelines. The A64 will excel at productivity apps, where the brute power of its integer units can be brought to bear. But either will serve you very, very well, and the cost for either camp is roughly equivalent.

So, to take a stance, there's no such thing as a “better” architecture when you don't have an apples-to-apples comparison. About the only thing these two chips have in common is they both run x86 code. Making any “better” distinctions on such differing architectures is pointless. – by J. Eric Smith

Fine(2:32pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)It's an architecturally more efficient CPU and INTEL KNOWS IT! Intel is the one with the raw power. Like the way a highly souped up Civic can kick a Mustangs butt! 0-60 in under 4 secs baby! – by Go AMD

“Better” CPU(2:46pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)Wouldn't one measure of a better architecture be its scalability for the future?

Getting back to the car analogy, a “highly souped up Civic” may be great against a stock Mustang but spend just a little on the Mustang and the Civic has to have a hell of a lot more mods to it to compare.

The same argument can be made for the AMD and Intel. Intel seems to have an architecture that it can keep extending and extending as long as they can keep the heat down. Albeit, heat problems are also there with AMD when they try upping the Mhz.– by NP

Scalability(2:57pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)P4 is at the end of it's ropes. – by Go AMD

Tell ya what boyz(3:11pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003) ya wanna see how good this beast really is …test these on small company software that doesnt register on intels radar so they didnt buy them out to handicap AMD.

What sincerely makes me sick is the single minded lack of “big picture” perspective Intel is displaying and the governments inefficacy at dealing with ballancing these two out.

If AMD goes down America goes DOWN(as tech is our next true future) ..and at a time like this with stiff competition coming from China, and the EU (space programs) there is no time for such serious miscalculations in corporate America. This is a serious Leadership problem that may WILL cost us dearly if not dealt with expediently. – by ballance yin-yang

This is like the PS2 and XBOX(3:33pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)PS2 was the best thing out for a while, but then came xbox, same gen. but they came out a different times. You guys are comparing the PS2(Althlon fx51) to the nintendo 64(p4). Although its not that drastic of a difference, prescott was made to go up agianst the fx51, not the p4. So by AMD beating the P4, good job, but watch out for prescott! – by myhellokitty

Athlon 64 FX = Unknown but current cooling solution offer protection up 89W. But certainly no where near 90W!

So much for Overclocking Prescott! – by Intel Heats Home

64-bit will sell it…(4:36pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)It's sad to see that AMD somehow always manages to make a mess of their releases. I was a bit depressed when I read the first review at THG, showing Intel giving AMD's latest baby a serious butt-kicking. Being a bit suspicious of the benchmarks I looked at the more interesting review at Ace's Hardware. The part showing the potential of 64-bit computing was particularly interesting. Although A64 makes a respectable showing in 32-bit it would be a lot more interesting to see how it performs in 64-bit. This is what AMD should be touting and if the software makers canít/wonít release 64-bit software themselves then AMD should help them along. When Intel releases a new feature in their processors they make sure that they get instant support. Another issue seems to be the quality of the motherboards. I guess AMD canít be blamed for that but it still makes the platform look bad. To top things off AMD also decided to release two different pin configurations and to make things even more confusing, they are going to change the Opteron style 940-pin to a 939-pin.

Well, if you disregard these little things, I guess the A64 is still a pretty impressing piece of silicon. It at least gives the opportunity to run 64-bit software and most likely at high speeds while still retaining the possibility to run 32-bit as fast as the fastest competitors. The architecture seems well thought through and in time weíll hopefully see some interesting comparisons of 32 versus 64-bit.– by Think

No, there you go again. Efficiency is another totally subjective measurement. How do you define efficiency? If you define it solely as work done per clock cycle, then yes, the AMD chip is more efficient. But that's a silly method of measurement given that the Intel architecture is *designed* to do less per clock cycle in lieu of running the clock faster. It's like saying a Winston Cup NASCAR V8 is less “efficient” at 3000RPM than a 4-cylinder passenger car engine at the same RPM. The Cup car engine isn't *designed* to be useful at 3000RPM, it's designed to work best at 9000RPM. Using clock speed, just like using RPM level, is a ridiculous form of measuring effectiveness when you *should* be measuring by the only yardstick that makes any sense: work done per dollar spent. In other words, bang for the buck.

If a processor is twice as fast but three times as expensive as a competing solution, *that's* a less efficient solution. If, by and large, the A64 and the P4 EE perform similarly for the tasks you intend to use them on, and both cost roughly the same, they are equally “efficient” (useful and appropriate would be better words). As it currently stands, Intel's P4 EE (if it were available) is a poor buy, as is the Athlon64, both for reasons of high price and low bang for buck in comparison with lower-speed siblings.

I'm not going to get dragged into this whole religious debate because it's petty, simplistic, and pointless. I don't care *how* Intel gets the work done inside their chip, just like I don't care *how* AMD works stuff inside the A64. I care how fast they are for my chosen tasks and how much they cost — PERIOD. If the AMD chip comes out on top because of this, it's “better” *FOR ME* but not necessarily better *FOR ANYONE ELSE*. The same is true for Intel's stuff.

This is not a religious debate, folks. This is hardware. You wouldn't catch yourself arguing with someone over which tool company makes a better screwdriver, would you? I would hope not. – by J. Eric Smith

64 bit is the shi*(5:34pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)It is the futureWhen someone asks you what computer you have. You will say, a nice 64 bit AMD. The other person will say, what the hell is that.

Only the latest and greatest and most efficient chip on the market. – by sounds nice

FX at 2.8GHz?!(5:44pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)According to aces… they have seen an FX overclocked to 2.8 and 2.94GHz?! Sounds a little more than 'extreme' to me… sad when !ntel has to put 2.5M of cache on to compete.. :) – by extreme?

Re:Eric(6:12pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)Or you could just think about which is more powerful, for some people price isn't the problem. – by myhellokitty

HOT HOT(6:18pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)Prescott = 103WP4 EE = 94W

Wrong…

Prescott = 103wP4 EE = 117w – I think it was Ace's that claimed that this processor was much, much warmer than anything he had previosly used. They had problems keeping the case cool.A64 = max 87w, current chips about 70w

About the EE (emergency edition), it will not be out for retail purchase until early next Spring. It will be sold in systems before X-Mas. Considering that it loses the majority of the tests to FX, and it will probably cost 10% more, it is a waste. Hell it lost a few gaming benchmarks by >30%.

To whomever said the FX lost to the 3.2C – quit smoking crack. Here is a short list of game benches from Ace's.

Tom's – Highly Dubious(6:25pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)“””Well the Tomshardware review shows even the fastest FX chip being beaten into a bloody pulp more than twice as many times as the FX wins.”””

Consider that Tom's was the only hardware site to come to this conclusion, and it raises many questions. These are questions by the way that have been raised before about Tom's allegiences.

In other words, Tom's is the anomoly here. Everyone else came to a different conclusion about the FX vs. EE performance. Namely, the FX winning. – by superNOVA

toms hardware sucks(6:25pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)is it just me, or does toms hardware site blow? they don't know anything. Heres the proof:Umm, Tom, I hate to break it to you stupid, but ID didn't make UT2003. It's made by digital extremes and Epic.

– by macs suck

An interesting line-up(6:51pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)

Well goats, here's my take on things this afternoon.

[A] AMD has produced a processor substantially more capable than what had either been feared or hoped for.

[B] INTEL got wind of AMD's intentions and went on an all-out crash course of improving the P4 with a bunch more cache.

[C] Both CPU's on any kind of weighted average are within 5% of each other, speed AND cost wise.

[D] None of the 64-bit extensions of the A64/FX appear to have been critical for extending the 32-bit performance expressed in the benchies.

[E] Intel is dissing “64-bit” as being relatively worthless at this time [which it is for 99.99% of us.]

[F] The cost/price is outrageous, but then again, the number of released chips is vanishingly small. It is sure to drop rather dramatically in the months ahead.

[G] AMD is really beginning to run into issues trying to get its largest chips out – reliably – from 200 millimeter plates.

[H] It is absurd, preposterous and vacuous for Intel/AMD to be positioning 85 watt chips as “mobile ready”. Oh please, impzilla's. 20 minute battery life does NOT consititute 'mobile ready' to me.

[I] Intel is clearly running self-assured. They “released” official chips that range from 3200 to 3600 MHz, but we can full-well expect that those 3600's are as scarce as chicken's teeth.

[J] If one is to really – REALLY – compare the new Fx51 and the P4EE, it would be at the 2.2 GHz and 3.2 GHz level respectively. At those numbers, the Fx51 essentially cremes the P4EE – although the EE does put up a gallant effort.

[K] All the arguments above notwithstanding, it is true: both chips are good at doing anything 'average' excellently, and to each in due, they specialize in different components of computing efficiency. In other words, Intel is better at some things, and AMD is better at others.

[L] I don't think the length-of-the-pipeline has much to do with anything any more. It allows Intel chips to USE higher clocks to get essentially the same amount of work done as an AMD for about the same amount of power.

[M] and if [L] isn't particularly inspiring, then consider: at no point in the last 10 years has AMD or Intel's comparable chips consumed substantially different amounts of power to “get the job done”. Coincidence? Hardly.

[N] The Oppie 146 is an orphan.

[O] The Oppie 246 needs a 248 or a 251 soon, to take advantage of the substantially greater cache and better memory performance pioneered by the Fx51. After all, with this introduction, the A64 is clearly the single CPU king of AMD's line up, and Oppie becomes ever more clearly the multi-CPU heavy.

…[Z] I would very much like to have one of the Fx51's with a couple of gigs of memory, a 4 drive, 750 GB RAID-5 array, a hot dual-head video card, and all the usual load of toys to boot.

– by GoatGuy

Heaters(7:11pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)It looks like Intel will rule the high price fan heater market. If you want a high priced fan heater, get a Prescott based system from 3rd December. – by Dominic Pledger

If wishes were horses…(7:22pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)GG, I'd rather take the cashola required for either a P4 EE or an A64-FX51 setup and instead spend it on a dual MP 2800+ setup with about 2GB of RAM. For workstation performance and multithreaded apps it would cream either platform. It would suck at games, but really, how many people spend $2,000 on a gaming machine? Not many, I assure you.

For the price of *one* FX-51 you can buy *three* MP 2800+ CPU's ($237 each), or two 2800+'s and a really nice 760MPX motherboard. Or, if you want something newer, get a dual Oppie board with two Oppie 240's ($240 each). With the darn-near-linear scaling offered by Opteron, it'd be like having a 2.8GHz Oppie chip for multithreaded stuff. And let's face it, if you're doing workstation work, your stuff is going to be multithreaded. I'd be real curious which might perform better, the dual 2800+ or the dual 240 setup, since costs would be more or less the same.

I would recommend a dual Intel setup as well, but the Xeon DP's remain very expensive (the best $240 will get you is a 2.4GHz Xeon which isn't even competitive with the 2800+, much less the Oppie), and Xeon mobos are even more expensive. You can save a bit on the RAM, though, since you can use unbuffed, unregged DIMM's. – by J. Eric Smith

Intel's getting whipped(7:37pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)Intel just needs to pack up their fancy name and take a boot in the a$$ cause Athalon isn't choosing to charge for the name like Intel, the extra $3,000 Intel charges for their processors is the for the words “Intel” on the box, AMD charges for what you get, good reliable and really fast processors. Most people just buy the Intel processors because “Intel is so good at what they do” ….aka ripping people off, and because “Intel is got a good name to back up their processors” , well they're paying for the name and that's about it cause Intel processors SUCK. People just need to be educated in the fact that Intel is here to screw, and AMD is here to save people time, money, and trouble. Go AMD – by AMD supporter

GoatGuy(7:47pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)I would disagree with you on the FX creams the P4 EE overall they are not more than 10% apart overall, then there is the few extremes on each side.

The truth be told my issue is for the price of a FX-51, or P4 EE, for the cost of just the chips you can get a I875 Mobo, 2.4 P4C, and a gig of DDR433(XMS Extreme), With that core setup the is no reason you can run you 2.4C at 3.2+ Ghz with nice air cooling, just add HDD, case, and video card and that you could get for less that a good Mobo for the FX-51 and the gig of ram to go with it.

See most the people who have been obsessed with the FX-51 before it was named, OC there systems and customize it to get the best bang for the buck, where is it now? The 2.4 P4C. and your what 10% slower(hey a 1 Ghz+ FSB would even out the scores a little more) for how much less? – by Nataku

still waiting AMD(7:51pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)I want to see wait & see what AMD said about their AMD 64 chip crunching the intel prescott chip then i will choose till then keep comparing it to the p4 3.2ghz :-) – by CasseModder

mobile ready(8:52pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)umm, goat guy, what AMD means by “mobile ready” is for notebooks that are nice and small, but no battery life. Some people don't need battery life. Its basically a desktop replacement. How cool would they be for LAN parties? – by macs suck

Re:Whoa(9:37pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)I beileve on THG(yes, THG, i'm not sure about what side they are on) but they got a dual oppie system to do it in about 40min. – by myhellokitty

No one buys AMD because they're faster(9:45pm EST Wed Sep 24 2003)They buy them because they're cheaper. If Intel hadn't used it's monopoly to abuse OEM, they'd be gone by now. I've bought AMD for years based on price. Unless, you are compiling/rendering something very large, buying Intel is wasting your money. For 90% of PC users, the difference between 1-4GHz or cache size is nothing compared to HD and bus speed. – by Andy Grove

AG's historical observation is in fact on the money: find me an ordinary, naive buyer that buys a system because it's an AMD, and I'll show you a Martian. This buyer picks the AMD system 'cuz it has “the numbers” for the price. Insanely, profoundly sad, the average buyer knows no more about megahertz, megabytes, megapixels and megabits than Neil Armstrong knew about NP complete algorithms and computational satisfiability. LOL.

The average Gumbo is a technical midgit, and the average tech gumbo isn't much more advanced: apart from mythical megahertz numbers, what can you say about a particular machine's ability to satisfy some base level of performance for the programs expected of it in the next 3 or so years? Answer: nothing substantitive. As many an eldergeek here has quipped heartily, his or her 400 MHz, 256 megabyte Celeron is chuggin' along QUITE nicely, thank you very much. Well, no video realitime decoding, no 3D worth goatchops, nothin' much in the entertainment skillet, but hey – it runs everything a business needs to get along. WP, Spreads, PPoint, Scheds, Browsing, EMail, specialized accounting and inventory and so on apps.

Again, working backwards, what I was proposing was not to compare the bang-for-the-buck of the Fx51 versus the P4EE, or the Dualie MP, or Dualie Xunion, or what have you, but to simply acknowledge that the FX is pretty damned quick, and gets an A- for effort, an A for innovation, and a C- for its tradename.

Finally, I also want to remind everyone that on the current playing field, the price for the motherboard, the chip is all quite rarefied stuff. There will be darn few buyers of the AMD chip at the $700 level any time soon. Unfortunately (for AMD). Intel on the other hand, has cultivated generation after generation of people who feel compelled to have 'the fastest' if they live in corner offices, or sport titles such as VP of Undersecretaries to the Chief Janitor.

– by GoatGuy

AMD I am so disappointed in you:((3:47am EST Thu Sep 25 2003)Look the Athlon64 3200 is still no faster than a P43200 and the P4EE kills it!

AMD I am so disappointed in you:(– by :(

please!(4:10am EST Thu Sep 25 2003)stop using tom's benchies! not many people take tom seriously anymore. look at tech-report, lost circuits or aces. – by me

Toms Hardware is unreliable for the 50th time(6:19am EST Thu Sep 25 2003)Have you seen who sponsors them?In the test tomshardware overclocks the P4EE but doesn't do it for the athlon 64 and the FX in the benchies. Now why do you think that is?Were they afraid of something that might upset their sponsors?Where as all the other web sites doing reviews do overclock both the amd and intel processors.It looks like tomshardware has sold its soul to intel.Look at and look for the link on other athlon fx reviews.

As for this situation, i'm just waiting for the prices of the old 32 bit stuff to drop so I can get my hands on it cheaply.

Intel has the Almighty quad pumped bus and Hyperthreading.

Amd has the fact it can equal and beat Intel on a lower clock frequency, which shows to me that they are far more efficient.

The real problem for AMD is getting the FX prices down to be far more competitive.The Athlon 64 is still an ok alternative. – by Hairy Mole

O NO!!!!!(6:37am EST Thu Sep 25 2003)Looks like the new AMDs are no faster than a P4. – by ME

test(10:43am EST Thu Sep 25 2003)test – by test

Tom's Hardware(11:42am EST Thu Sep 25 2003)As soon as I saw Tom using Sysmark 2002 for one of their application benchmarks I didn't bother to read further. Anyone that still uses that benchmark is obviously bias and that's no joke.

What I found funny is how the P4, all versions, still beats even the FX, but when you look at the newest game based on the Q3 engine, RtCW, the P4 is beaten quite handily by the new A64/FX chips. So if you only plan to run old games the P4/EE is the chip for you. If you plan to play new games, get the A64/FX. :)

AMD's problem will still come down to production. Great chip, but they can't make enough of it to gain any significant consumer market share. – by Whatever

bothered to actually read?(12:35pm EST Thu Sep 25 2003)If you had bothered to actually read the THG test you can see that they said Sysmark 2002 was no a relevant test nowadays. Also of you had read it all you will have seen that they test they were running was a very full and varied test.

Now if you look at the THG test you can actually see the AMD is faster at many of them, but the majority of tests showed that nowadays it is very close between AMD and Intel. They also explained that the Intel chips were probably only faster at many of the tests because they were compiled to take advantage of the Intel chip and that it is possible that things can change.

I really do not get all you sad AMD fans, why douse it matter if you have a Intel or AMD in you computer? Plus most of the links you are giving actually show exactly the same thing as THG! Why cant all you AMD lovers just be happy that AMD and Intel are battling it out ones more!

I suggest that you do not get a AMD or a Intel, but instead get a MacG5:-)– by Tom no relation

re: GoatGuy(12:36pm EST Thu Sep 25 2003) Most times i dont agree with you but this time I must confess …you got it pretty right. this will piss off the intelites but “cremes” the pee4 sounds about right to me.

I'm betting this thing is a true monster and I'm getting one/or two as I know there are enough idiots in my pool of associates to fall for the intel fud so I can see with my own eyes how they do with, as was put earlier by someone “out of intel RADAR” software!

I remember testing an 800duron against a pee4 1700 only to find the DURON actually was faster in unmolesated software.

So i'm not so keen on being lied to by toms-hardcock or intel anymore. – by watcher

AMD's Future(12:41pm EST Thu Sep 25 2003)Does AMD have plans on moving to a 90 nm process within the next year or two? – by JZ

RE: JZ(1:47pm EST Thu Sep 25 2003)

according to their roadmap .. 1H04– by ste

Re: watcher(2:38pm EST Thu Sep 25 2003)At work I remember testing an XP3000+ against a P4 1.8GHz at the XP was much slower at 3D modeling.

toms-hardcock shows the same as all the other links on this page. So they must be all mad and you are the only sane one remaining?

I do think at the moment AMD have the advantage most of it is in the games market, but it is not a big one.

Something tells me you are probably all you AMD lovers out there are all going to be very unhappy shortly.

– by ME

re ME(3:46pm EST Thu Sep 25 2003) dude as a matter of FACT it was 3d modeling tests i had used where the pee4 had its ass handed too it by the lowly duron.

I'll assume you are a well paid intel employee to offer such Fuddish and not waste anymore of my time on your kin.

this whole thing is truelly rediculous as, if it were Intel with a 32/64 bit beast of this calibre there would be NO conversation as to it (64) being our future and all other prox should be cast into the nether-realms for their ancientness. – by watcher

Also, he said he wanted to retire Sysmark2002 if there was no updates. That they used the benchmark at all indicates that they did find it relavent, why else did they include it otherwise?

Again, I said the use of Sysmark 2002 was a bias thing to do to begin with, not due to any irrelavance, but due to skewing the tests scores towards P4 strengths instead of to real world user usage. The individual testing of SysMark2002 has been reveal and that's exactly what changed from Sysmark2001 to 2002. Anyone using it is irrelavent.

Don't know what sites you've been reading, but AMD chips wins or equals Intel chips in games and win in business apps. Intel only wins in video encoding and hyperthreading optimized apps.

But most benches shows that Intel chips while winning in legacy engines, like Q3, the AMD chips makes huge gains or win outright with the new engines.

For game enthusiast the AMD chip is a serious consideration and the A64 being the cheapest of the highend soltuions.

I think most people is just telling it how it is, no more, no less. Happens that THG is the most irrelavent review out of the bunch.– by Whatever

>>>(3:17pm EST Sun May 08 2005)– by >>>

AMD ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(6:54am EST Thu Jul 13 2006)HI THERE,AMD ATHLON 64 FX-62 2.8GHZ DDR2 AM2 SOCKET IS NOW AVAILABLE, NOT IN THREE MONTHS FROM NOW,UNTIL CONROE XE, THEN AMD WILL INTRODUCE OTHER PROCESSORS FASTER THAN CONROE XE IN THE SAME SOCKET AM2,AND FOR NOW THE ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES (AMD) IS THE LEADER IN PROCESSING POWER IN EVERY TASK AND MULTYTASKING IN A REAL-LIFE PERFORMANCE.GO! AMD-INTEL SUCKS!!!. – by THTHG